Manbhum Ispat Private Limited vs Ca Santanu Brahma Liquidator Of ...
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 161 of 2025
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The impugned order of the Adjudicating Authority, passed on an application without giving the affected party notice and an opportunity of hearing, cannot stand; it is liable to be set aside on that ground alone, and the matter restored to the Adjudicating Authority for hearing afresh on the application, the Tribunal not reaching the question of the application's maintainability.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Manbhum Ispat Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
CA Santanu Brahma, Liquidator of Corporate Debtor & Ors. ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Siddhartha Chatterjee, Ms. Ankita Upadhyay Agarwal, Mr. Naman Sherstra, Mr. Abir Lal Ghosh, Ms. Mamsha Gupta, Mr. Chirantan Saha, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Shaunak Mitra, Mr. Driptao Mazumdar, Mr. Manas Das, Mr. Chandan Mohata, Advocates for Liquidator.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
28.01.2025: Heard Shri Abhijeet Sinha, learned senior counsel for the
Appellant and Shri Shaunak Mitra, learned counsel appearing for Respondent
No.1 - Liquidator. This appeal has been filed against order dated 17.12.2024
passed by the Adjudicating Authority in IA No.200 of 2024. The IA was filed
by the Liquidator praying for various reliefs as noticed in the order. The
Adjudicating Authority after hearing the Liquidator has passed the order
issuing certain directions. The Appellant aggrieved by this order has come up
in this appeal.
2. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the Liquidator, Shri
Shaunak Mitra submitted that the order was passed without any notice and
Cont'd.../ 2
hearing to the Appellant, hence, the order need to be set aside and the matter
needs to be remanded for hearing afresh before the Adjudicating Authority.
3. Shri Abhijeet Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant also
submits that the application was not maintainable before the Adjudicating
Authority.
4. Be that as it may, in view of the concession given by the Liquidator, the
order passed by the Adjudicating Authority without hearing the Appellant
deserve to be set aside on this ground alone. We, thus, set aside the impugned
order dated 17.12.2024. Revive IA No.200 of 2024 before the Adjudicating
Authority to be heard afresh. Appeal is allowed to the above extent.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)
[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) Archana/nn
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No.161 of 2025
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free